The Instigator
Zerosmelt
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
alvinthegreat
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Monotheism Reduces to Monism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,054 times Debate No: 4854
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

Zerosmelt

Pro

I will be arguing for a somewhat unintuitive proposition and b/c of this i am positive that many people will vote against me without fully reading my arguments. I ask anyone voting to please read the debate carefully.

There are two ways of persuading an individual;
-Emotive Cajoling
-Logical Reasoning (since this topic has elicited confusion on this site in the past i will provide this link to clarify the meaning of Logic. http://philosophy.hku.hk...)

Emotive Cajoling is an ineffective method for discerning truth and I ask my opponent to refrain from using it. Obviously most arguments people make are interlaced with both types of persuasion. Please be conscience of this fact.

Now to address the topic. There are many kinds of monotheism. I am concerned only with Omniscient Monotheism. The claim that there is a God/Being who knows everything. All other attributes about this God are irrelevant. There are many kinds of Monism as well. Most notably the various forms of substance monism. I am not concerned with substance monism per-say. I am concerned with the notion that there is only one being or self. That is how i am defining monism in this context.

So to be completely clear I am arguing that if a Being exists that knows everything then only one being exists. That is to say that every human being is this greater being in actuality. Human beings do not exist in and of themselves but merely as a part of this greater being.

The only unjustified presupposition of this debate is that an omniscient being exists. Nothing else is to be assumed without just reason. If my opponent wishes to evoke notions such as the soul, or freewill. We can only talk about the possibility of these things existing. There is no reason to suggest that they actually exist so we can't simply assume that they do.

These are the conditions of the debate only accept it if you are willing to comply.

My argument is simple and much related to Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum.

1. Being a Self is identical to an experience.
2. An Experience is a form of Knowledge.
3. Ergo Being a self is identical to a form of Knowledge.
4. If a being exist who contains all knowledge then it contains such knowledge.
5. The knowledge of every self would be a part of the knowledge of this greater being.
6. Since being a self is identical to such knowledge every self would be identical to a part of that greater being.

What i mean by this is that you are a self in so far as you experience. Right now you are looking at a computer. That is an experience. That experience is a form of knowledge. I don't necessarily mean that you know about the experience but that the experience itself is a form of knowledge. You may be unaware of your own experience but the experience itself is a form of knowledge, not necessarily the awareness of the experience.

Because the experience itself is a form of knowledge an omniscient god would have to have the exact same experience. Meaning there would be no difference between you and God. At least a part of God. You would simply be a part of God. If you are identical to god in this respect then there is no differentiation. Only one thing exists. Consider if x is identical to y then there really is only one thing. x and y are two symbols that describe the same thing.
alvinthegreat

Con

I must ask my opponent to clarify what kind of Monism he is supporting. His definition of Monism is very vague: "I am concerned with the notion that there is only one being or self."
Is there an overarching being that composes of ALL SUBSTANCE, or does a distinct individual exist in your system? Or are you proposing there is only ONE BEING (absolute Monism)consisting of only one substance and one being? I believe that this would greatly focus the debate into appropriate area(s).

I'm going to go straight to his syllogism:

1. Being a Self is identical to an experience.
2. An Experience is a form of Knowledge.
3. Ergo Being a self is identical to a form of Knowledge.
4. If a being exist who contains all knowledge then it contains such knowledge.
5. The knowledge of every self would be a part of the knowledge of this greater being.
6. Since being a self is identical to such knowledge every self would be identical to a part of that greater being.

I shall dispute the following points: 1), 2), 5), 6)

"Being a self is identical to an experience"

This point raises numerous questions.

First, I must ask, what is YOUR DEFINITION of experience? Does living necessarily constitute an experience? Is experience mutually exclusive of the mindset of the person who experiences (i.e can say, a mentally retarded person who is not fully cognizant of his surroundings/experiences actually experience?) Does experience encompass every thought, every action? When does experience begin? at the formation of the being? at the time at which the being becomes cognizant?

Secondly, What identifies as a self? "Self" and "Experience" are human constructs that defines our lives/conscience does it not? Although this may seem stupid, do ALL animals necessarily experience? Does every material object experience (because, are not boxes (or *insert material object here* themselves or being?) What is self? Is self the existence of something, or is the cognizance of existence?

Thirdly, is not an experience an afterthought? What I mean is that you have to "be" first, before you can experience. Thus, does not the "being" part is necessary for experience. Thus, if "being is necessary for experience", then we can question how God receives such experience (what's the first cause argument, ect)

===============================

"2. An Experience is a form of Knowledge."

Yet, is there not an intangible part of Experience that does not necessarily constitute knowledge? What does experience suggest? The doing of an act and subsequent knowledge gained from it, does it not?

In order for experience to be earned, an action (active or passive) must be performed or done. I posit that this "action" is not necessarily under the general umbrella of knowledge. In other words, the performing of the action is mutually exclusive from the gaining of the knowledge, and since God did not perform this action and it is not in his knowledge, the being is not a part of god.

Thus, your syllogism breaks down, since if a being has some part of "experience" that does not necessarily fall under knowledge, then it is not part of the whole.

===================

"Being a self is identical to a form of Knowledge"

Since i disputed your first premise, this conclusion does not make sense.

=================

"6. Since being a self is identical to such knowledge every self would be identical to a part of that greater being."

You have over extended your argument. All you have proved thus far (assuming your syllogism holds up thus far), is that "being a self" is "being part of the knowledge that the Greater god possesses". You have not formulated a separate argument to show that the "being a self" = "being part of the greater being".

The fundamental question is: Does a omniscient god and does each being consist exclusively of knowledge/experience?

My position is that knowledge/experience does not necessarily constitute being part of the greater being. In order for a self to be part of the greater being, it has constitute more than experience (i.e Soul, free will ect ect we can argue this if you want).

Secondly, you have not shown that being a self CONSISTS ONLY OF EXPERIENCES (and thus knowledge), you have shown that being a self is a form of experience. If being a self only consisted of Experiences, then your syllogism might hold up. It is intuitive that our lives are more than the accumulation of knowledge.

Thirdly, since being must come before experiences, and it is only the existence of the being that can produce experiences, it shows that experiences are not necessarily the equivalent of "being" (leading back to my former arguments). They may be similar, but one necessitates the other, so they're not the exact the same.

IN conclusion, my opponent has several holes and unanswered questions in his syllogism that needs to be plugged in or answered.
Debate Round No. 1
Zerosmelt

Pro

Hey thanks for accepting this debate I can already tell that you'll be a good opponent.
Clarification of monism: derived from the greek monos "alone" or "one"
"Monism is any doctrine based on the assumption of a single underlying principle." http://www.mb-soft.com... Obviously there are many doctrines that fall into this category. As of late the term "Monism" has become synonymous with "Substance Monism": the belief that reality consists of one kind of thing. This is where confusion may arise because I am NOT referring to substance monism in anyway. Instead I am confining monism to refer to the claim that only one self/being exists. This is not absolute monism b/c absolute monism is a type of substance monism. It claims that only one self exists AND only one substance exists.

The version of monism I am using claims that just one being exists but it doesn't claim anything else, it allows for the possibility of substance dualism, pluralism or monism.
--
My opponent has replied with a slue of rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions themselves do not entail a counter argument. The majority of my opponent's rebuttal was spent questioning the truth/falsity of my premises. Questioning the truth or falsity of my premises is not the same as proving them false. At the moment it is still unknown whether or not my premises are true or false. Now I will try to answer some of your questions.

Allow me to define an experience, the following constitutes one experience:
You:
a) See a green grass field in front of you with tall mountains in the background, a blue sky over head, and a big bright sun directly above you.
b)Feel the warm breeze across your skin and through your hair. -The weight of your body against the ground as you're sitting. –The grass gently touching your leg. – The feel of your clothes. – And a slight tinge of hunger.
c) Hear the wind blowing and crickets chirping
d) Smell the earth and grass
e) Taste your own saliva.
f) Are emotionally content b/c of the weather but also feel a slight inner sadness deep down.
g) Are thinking about what to make for dinner and b/c of such you are barely aware of this experience at all.

All of the aspects a-g constitute what I would call one experience and that experience is identical to one's own self. They are exactly the same. A self simply is an experience or series of experiences. My entire argument rests on the truth of this claim. It is impossible to definitively prove the claim true or false. So it breaks down to a matter of opinion. There is a just reason for believing it however. Everything falls into three degrees of "unprovability". 1) Things that can absolutely be proven 2) Things that can't be absolutely proven but have just reason for belief and 3) things that can't be proven and don't have just reason for belief. Examples: 1) The statement; "Nothing is true." cannot be true 2) Everything is not a figment of my imagination and 3) There is a teapot floating in intergalactic space.
The only way we can ascertain that selves exist at all is through our experience as selves. Therefore believing that our experience is identical to ourselves falls into the 2nd degree of unprovability. Claiming that a soul or some kind of extra self exists beyond our experience cannot be proven in anyway b/c we simply can't experience it. Such a claim would fall into the 3rd degree. Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that we are simply our experience.

Once you have accepted this much we can probe deeper and clear up the confusion surrounding my second premise in my original syllogism. There are two kinds of knowledge. 1) Knowledge about an experience and 2) the experience itself as a form of knowledge. The first is analytic the second is experiential. Analytic knowledge is knowledge about an experience while experiential knowledge is just the experience. Being aware of an experience is having analytic knowledge about the experience where as simply having the experience is also knowledge itself b/c it contains information. Anyone familiar with information theory will realize that the above aspects a-g are bits of information. Information is acquired and interpreted as knowledge in many different ways. One way is through seeing (a) collecting photon information. Another way is hearing (c) collecting molecular vibration information. Yet another way of collecting information is through the act of cognitive thinking (g). My opponent's argument attempts to reduce all forms of knowledge about information to the act of cognitive thinking. While I hold thinking to be one aspect of experience itself and one way of acquiring knowledge. My opponent asks, "Is not an experience an afterthought?" An afterthought is a form of analytic knowledge, as opposed to experiential knowledge.

And furthermore, knowledge about an experience (analytic knowledge) is itself also an experience.

--
My opponent is right, I did make a slight logical jump when I stated
"6. Since being a self is identical to such knowledge every self would be identical to a part of that greater being."

Let me clarify. I still hold that being a self is identical to a certain form of knowledge. For clarity the "certain form of knowledge" is the accumulation of all a given being's knowledge whether it be analytic or experiential. Therefore a self is identical to the accumulation of all its knowledge. My opponent agrees (if my syllogism holds) that I proved thus far that being a self is identical to being part of the knowledge of an omniscient God. This god is a self/being/entity. And as a self His self/being/entity is identical to the accumulation of all His knowledge b/c that is how selves are defined. If X is identical to Y then Y is identical to X. So it holds that the accumulation of all God's knowledge is identical to God Himself. ERGO being a self is identical to being part of an omniscient God. This means that "self" and "part of an omniscient God" are two phrases that describe the same thing.

Lets put it in simpler terms
Suppose
"=" symbolizes identity
G= Omniscient God
K= all knowledge of all kinds.
E= accumulation of all the knowledge of every non-omniscient self.
C= all knowledge G might have that isn't E

K= E + C
G=K (established)
Ergo G=E+C

T= total number of all selves'
S= One non-omniscient self/being
A= accumulation of the total of one non-omniscient being's knowledge
M = T – S (basically M is the total of all selves minus one self.)

S=A (established)
Ergo T= E
Ergo G=T+C
T = G – C (This means that all selves combined equal a part of G)
T= M +S
M +S= G – C
Ergo S = G – C – M (meaning one self is identical to a part of God, G= C+M+S)

Q/A:
-" Does living necessarily constitute an experience?" No, plants are living. They don't have experience so they don't have selves. If, however, we discovered that plants do have experience then they would have selves.
- Mentally retarded people have experience so they have selves. However, people who are 100% brain dead don't have experience and therefore don't have selves at the moment they are brain dead. Their self may come back into existence if their brain/experience is restored.
- "Does every material object experience" No, every material object does not, but if it did then it would have a self.
--
"since being must come before experiences, and it is only the existence of the being that can produce experiences" I disagree with this notion. Experience, in my definition is the act of being (a self that is). They are identical—one does not come before the other. The self comes into being the moment experience does b/c they are the same thing. That isn't to say that things can't exist unless they have experience. Rocks and plants both exist but don't have experience/selves. Yet in order for a self to exist experience must exist because they are the same thing.

Thanks Again
alvinthegreat

Con

I think this debate has boiled down to several points, most of which are really just personal opinion.

First, I'm going to attack my opponent's first claim in his syllogism:
"1. Being a Self is identical to an experience."

My opponent has basically said: "My entire argument rests on the truth of this claim."

I) My opponent has repeatedly asserted the validity of this claim based on nothing more than the definitions of the two terms. My opponent has claimed that an being is (in essence) an experience(s). Although I have had no formal training in philosophy nor logic, I believe that my opponent is artificially constraining the definitions of the two terms here to the degree that no matter what I argue, his definitions ENSURES that the two terms are equal (and thus unchallengeable)

I assure you that his definition of self: "A self simply is an experience or series of experiences." is not shown in any established dictionary (other than his own). Here is the definition from merriam-webster online dictionary:

Self(n):
1) a: the entire person of an individual b: the realization or embodiment of an abstraction
2) (1): an individual's typical character or behavior
(2): an individual's temporary behavior or character b: a person in prime condition
3: the union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person
4: personal interest or advantage
5: material that is part of an individual organism

I believe that this definition covers the wide range of how "Self" can be defined. Furthermore, the definitions my opponent has advanced for "being" and "experience" entails a certain amount of circular logic (or begging the question). As stated by Fowler's Deductive Logic:
"If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue."

Furthermore, self is merely a construct that can be used to refer to NUMEROUS things. My opponent is cherry-picking the definition that best fits his argument. I posit that there is more a set of or series of experiences. I believe it is intuitive that certain elements that entail the loosely-defined concept of self such as reasoning, thought-processes, emotion, action, ect... cannot be confined to the set of all experiences.

My opponent mentioned his interpretation of "unprovability", let me add another crtierion for this: "Unprovability due to artificially constraining definitions". If A is artificially made by my opponent equal to B, then of course it is not unprovable. Yet, if I demonstrate that the definitions of self and experience/knowledge are different than what my opponent has stated, I believe that I can demonstrate that his premises are false based on faulty logic and counterexample.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that my opponent has been constraining his definitions of certain terms in order to form tautologies out of his premises – a act of begging the question.

2) Experience = Knowledge

In the first round, I posited that there are certain "intagibles" of experiences that are not necessarily knowledge. In order to back this point up, I will again use an objective dictionary (merriam-webster online dictionary) in order to define it:

Experience (n):
1 a: direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b: the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
2 a: practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity b: the length of such participation
3 a: the conscious events that make up an individual life b: the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally
4: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
5: the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

First, As one can see, all the definition of experience I have listed contains some form of "observation" or "act". In other words, the definitions of experience I have listed are far different than the very constraining definitions of my opponent. In fact, the objective definitions I have listed all either a) state the need for a preceding act or observation in order to gain experience or b) necessitates certain acts of conscious reasoning. My argument is that the existence of rational thinking and the ability to ACT (either passively, via hearing, or actively, via action) is OUTSIDE of the domain the omniscient god, since it is not necessarily experience nor knowledge, but rather an action of some sort.

Secondly, Although I have asked my opponent to define experience, he has merely given me several examples. As one knows, an example cannot define something; it cannot an establish a bright line. My definitions from M-W.com not only cover ALL of his examples, but it actually DEFINES what an experience is.

Thirdly, my opponent's definition of knowledge and experience is (I believe) again employing some form of circular reasoning(correct me if I'm wrong). If knowledge is defined in such a way it necessitates the existence (persuming the fact) of experience, is it not begging the question? (Not a rhetorical question)

Lastly, I posit that words such as "experience", "self", and "knowledge" are merely human constructs used to express abstractions; thus, there is a great deal of confusion over what these terms actually mean. My opponent has defined these words from his own subjective paradigm; however, I have defined these terms objectively, and thus, you, the voter, should place more emphasis on my objective definitions over his subjective ones.

My main problem with my opponent's arguments is that he is injecting a fair amount of subjective definitions in to this debate in order to justify his points. However, I agree in essence with his proof for number 6, other than the fact that his premises from 1 and 2 are wrong (and thus the whole first syllogism).
Debate Round No. 2
Zerosmelt

Pro

By Now Most ReAdEr'S probably have a (((VOICE))) inside them that is saying, "ok, enough already… this is too long. I'll skim it and get to the point." Please ignore that voice. Relax…. And take ur time reading this.

My argument does not rely on our common conceptions (or misconceptions) about what a self is and what experience is. Instead it relies on long philosophical debates about these conceptions.

Any standard dictionary is required to define terms according to our common conceptions however wrong our conceptions maybe.
People are probably now thinking, how could a definition ever be wrong? If you define a Doifub as a sea urchin then "Doifub" is simply a word that means sea urchin. I ask u to plz hold back ur disbelief while I explain this. Definitions are constantly changed. For example: In Europe in the 1600's swans were defined as always being white. Then in 1790 the black swan was discovered.
Society was shocked, the word swan had to be redefined.
http://nzbirds.com...

I brought up this debate not to argue that our common conceptions of self and experience are identical because it turns out that when you analyze our common conceptions of these things they fall apart.
http://www-usr.rider.edu...

http://cogprints.org...

http://www.cnsspectrums.com...

When philosophers ask themselves, what is a self? What I am actually? Do they say, "Oh Wait!... I'll look it up in the dictionary! Yeah that's it, that solves this whole problem." NO they DON'T. They try and figure out what the self actually is by thinking about it logically. This whole debate is centered around questioning what the self is and coming to the conclusion that it is identical to an omniscient God. (Assuming god exists)

If my opponent will not allow me to question what the self and experience actually are than we can only debate the common conceptions of these things.

I would never in a million years even attempt to debate that our everyday usage of the term "self" is identical to our everyday usage of the term "experience". What I have tried to do is give a brief view into the window of the philosophy of self and experience so you could see that these things are not what our common conceptions hold them to be.

My opponent has used dictionaries to bring the definition of self and experience back to our common conception of these things. I have spent the last 2 rounds arguing against the validity of these common conceptions. Instead of countering my argument my opponent has simply restated what the common conceptions are. If he is to show that a self is not what I argued it to be then he must address my argument. I truly hope that people will be able to see this point.

"Yet, if I demonstrate that the definitions of self and experience/knowledge are different than what my opponent has stated, I believe that I can demonstrate that his premises are false based on faulty logic and counterexample."

Again.. In order to demonstrate that my premises are false you must counter my arguments for their validity. I have spent the last 2 rounds proving the truth of my premises. Instead of countering my arguments you have simply restated that a self is the very thing I proved it isn't.

Let me restate my argument in laymen's terms. This argument includes reasons for believing:
-the self is not exactly what our common conceptions claim but is actually identical to experience
-that experience is not exactly what our common conceptions claim but is actually identical to a form of knowledge

So I ask you; if we take away absolutely everything you are experiencing, do you exist?? Regardless of whether you have a soul or not, if you are not experiencing anything at all how could you ever claim to exist? You see, this is why I claim that you simply are your experience. That's not to say that your body or the physical world doesn't exist. It's to say that what is "you" is not identical to your body, but identical to the processes in your brain that produce your experience. These processes are your experience, which is you.

Lets suppose an all-knowing God exists. He knows absolutely everything. Would it make sense to say that God doesn't know what you are seeing right now? No it doesn't. God would know what you are seeing right now. He would know what you're seeing and EXACTLY the way you are seeing it. He would know everything about what you are seeing and how you are seeing it with such exactitude that He would have to experience it exactly the way you are. (of course He has the liberty of experiencing it in many other ways as well, but He would have to at least experience it the way you are.)

Now we can ask the same question about what you're hearing and you get the same result. We can then ask it about what you are smelling, tasting, touching, feeling, thinking… etc. etc. until we have covered absolutely everything you are experiencing and we get the same result. If you are your experience then ultimately there is no difference between everything that makes up you and that which is (at least one piece of) god. Because God would be His experience as well, and some of His experiences would be identical to your experiences.

"My argument is that the existence of rational thinking and the ability to ACT (either passively, via hearing, or actively, via action) is OUTSIDE of the domain the omniscient god, since it is not necessarily experience"
My opponent claims that the act of thinking is not an experience! How can you have a thought without experiencing it? I know of no one who would claim that the act of thinking is not an experience. I'd like to see you show me that it isn't. The irony here is that my opponent's own definition of experience includes "conscious reasoning." If my opponent claims that rational thinking is not an experience then he has just contradicted himself. Besides almost anyone who believes in an omniscient god believes that He knows what everyone is thinking which would circumvent the problem, if there was one.

"entails a certain amount of circular logic (or begging the question). As stated by Fowler's Deductive Logic:
"If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue." "

I have not begged the question. Arguing for identity does necessarily entail "begging the question". Otherwise mathematics would have no basis. Quoting something out of context (especially w/o a source) does not prove any point either. If you still hold that I have begged the question than show me exactly where in my argument I have done so. Do not forget that I have posed arguments for my identity claims.

>Nowhere have I claimed that knowledge necessitates the existence of experience. I have claimed that experience is identical to a portion of knowledge. Knowledge may exist w/o experience. Experience is one form of knowledge.

You asked me to define experience: It is the combination of three actions: sensing, feeling, and thinking.

Knowledge is the acquisition of information. Those three actions are different ways of acquiring information. Therefore experience is the combination of three different forms of knowledge. Experience is identical to a portion of knowledge.

Furthermore, I have not simply defined these words according to my own subjective paradigm because I have provided logical arguments for my definitions.

Thanks! Really great debate Alvin!
alvinthegreat

Con

Here is what the debate has boiled down to:
How much of a role should our every-day definitions of a word influence how it can be limited for a specific purpose
Does an experience entail the actual action required to gain the experience in the first place?

I have no choice but to concur with my opponent's syllogism except for the fallacious definitions he is using in order to define his two most important premises. We must decide the role of a regularly accepted definitions in a syllogism. For a premise to make sense, it has to be TRUE, or valid in order for it to be used validly in a syllogism. What determines how true something is? The concept of truth is founded first and foremost on the grounds that the truth has to be accepted b the majority of people.

My opponent has based his whole syllogism on the concept of two or three definitions that, I think we both agree, are outside the limits of what common day usage of the two words. While I'm not concerned with his own interpretations of "experience", "self", or "knowledge", but rather with the general interpretations of these said words. If the syllogism is valid in his mind, then so much the better; however, for a syllogism to be generally valid, we need premises that are true! With this said, I object to my opponent using subjective definitions that ARE not supplied by objective dictionaries in order to prove my point.
Not only has my opponent cherry-picked his definitions, he has committed an error in supposing that "experience" encompasses everything in life. The word "experience" (as defined by m-w.com) demands the existence of preconditions in order for it to be gained. I cannot gain experience of something by doing nothing, can I? The answer is obviously no. Thus, experience, requires AN ACTION OF SOME SORT in order for it to be gained, and since god is not performing this action, we're not all part of hi

Although I agree with my opponent's syllogism if the two or three definitions were not so broadly defined, I believe that the definitions have OVERLY constrained the possible permutations of "experience" and "self" that are available.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by InsidRJ 8 years ago
InsidRJ
To be Honest, I voted PRO b/c the whole point of the debate was to argue about what the self actually is. CON basically neglected the point of the debate itself.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
Thanks for the debate alvin, I enjoyed it greatly.

I just want to restate that i posed arguments for my definitions, i have not simply chosen to define them however i pleased.

you never countered my arguments for these definitions.

If a definition defines anything with more than one attibute then the definition has opened up the possibility to be self contradictory.

Ex. Swan:

-any of several large, stately aquatic birds of the subfamily Anserinae, having a long, slender neck (1st Attribute)

-and pure-white plumage in the adult. (2nd Attribute)

well it turned out that the frist attribute contradicted the second when they discovered the black swan. The definition of swan needed revision.

Likewise take two attribute from the common definition of Self:
- personal identitiy
- And "material that is part of an individual organism"

These two attributes have the potential to contradict eachother. Philosophers have been trying to work out this possible contradiction for centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even most materialist such as dan dennett say that there is a contradiction between the physical body and one's self. he calls the self a non physical point like a center of gravity.
http://cogprints.org...
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
i just want to clarify the fact that when i restated my argument in the last round i made this claim:

"He would know everything about what you are seeing and how you are seeing it with such exactitude that He would have to experience it exactly the way you are."

In making this claim i was relying on the notion i proved in the second round, which is that experience is identical to a form of knowledge.
Posted by alvinthegreat 8 years ago
alvinthegreat
oops several grammatical errors...

"If A is artificially made by my opponent equal to B, then of course it is not unprovable"

is actually: If A is artificially made by my opponent equal to B, then of course it is unprovable
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
to be slightly more precise T should read T= total number of all non-omniscient selves'
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ZerosmeltalvinthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
ZerosmeltalvinthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by alvinthegreat 8 years ago
alvinthegreat
ZerosmeltalvinthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InsidRJ 8 years ago
InsidRJ
ZerosmeltalvinthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TwinDragon 8 years ago
TwinDragon
ZerosmeltalvinthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Skepticallykerect 8 years ago
Skepticallykerect
ZerosmeltalvinthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mjoveny 8 years ago
mjoveny
ZerosmeltalvinthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30